Comments on WattHead - Energy News and Commentary: Reflections on redefining ACES from out in the sti...

I don't believe these are ad hominem attacks. ...

2009-06-30T06:09:20.442-07:00

I don't believe these are ad hominem attacks.

First, the article I posted illustrates what a functioning Cap N Trade system will do to the US.

Second, why regulate a gas that is .04 per cent of the atmosphere, it makes no sense.

Third, if you want clean energy, look at nuclear. Many modern designs have addressed the waste issue.

Fourth, why artificially make other forms of energy more expensive to make wind and solar more attractive? Let science and the market develop alternatives. Government can provide incentives, but not at the expense of the US. Driving jobs off shore to inefficient countries only makes matters worse. I read recently about 2 companies that have devised a system of installing solar panels on houses and helping home owners save money on there electricity. They handle the tax write offs and deal with the electric companies. It is a win for both the customer and the company.

My problem is the government is too heavy handed.

The post itself is referring to how the existing b...

2009-06-29T13:17:20.778-07:00

The post itself is referring to how the existing bill (ACES) has been weakened in ways that make it more likely to raise costs and send jobs overseas, whereas the original intent of the bill - back when it still included significant incentives for new clean energy industry - was to spark job creation and economic recovery at home. A true investment in job creation and clean energy will obviously help America by reducing our dependence on costly energy sources - lots of evidence in the post - and creating jobs here. If you want to debate the evidence, please read the sources I provided (which include three books, with hundreds of citations each) before comparing it with single research papers. I am critiquing the bill that passed, not championing it, because it doesn't focus much on this investment in a new energy economy.

I hope that clears things up. No need for ad hominem attacks on the side.

It is trying to move money and private investment ...

2009-06-28T16:52:40.275-07:00

It is trying to move money and private investment away from the dirty energy sources that have been dragging our economy down for the past decade, emptying our personal and federal pocket-books, sending industry overseas, and propping up petroleum dictatorships. Its trying to move that money into new industries, led by scrappy American entrepreneurs who want to create jobs for everyday Americans in new energy industries that will avoid energy waste and generate a new foundation for our economy from clean energy sources that we control. Its trying to break down the old boys club of big energy companies to provide access to innovators who can make clean energy and energy efficiency cheap, and revitalize American manufacturing by creating demand for wind turbines and hybrid-electric vehicles, and efficient houses (new, and upgrades), sustainable, accessible food for all, the transportation infrastructure of the future. Its about taking the huge black hole into which all our energy expenses have gone and turning it around - making it into an agent for investment and innovation in a sustainable economy. Putting a price on carbon-intensive activities like burning coal and oil, and providing incentives for a new universe of clean energy innovation, is just a vehicle towards that end.

I don't know what drugs you are taking, but your solution will hurt America and Americans.

I repeat for the third time, read the article I posted in your previous link. It is not from a right wing news source. You may have gotten a bill passed in the house, but getting 60 votes in the Senate will be very tough.

Be intellectually honest and at least acknowledge your solution will hurt America and drive jobs to third world countries.

You can't even get Senator Kennedy to vote for wind power in his backyard